Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

USF: Philosophy > Final > Flashcards

Final Flashcards

1
Q

Alan Turing: The turing thesis

A
  • effective or mechanical method in logic and mathematics
  • an informal specification of: can be by means of an effective method
  • a method or procedure for achieving a desired result is effective just in case
    1. it is set out in terms of a finite number of exact instructions
    2. it will produce the desired result in a finite # of steps
    3. it can be carried out by a human unaided by any machinery
    4. it demands no insight or ingenuity on the part of the human to carry it out
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Church Turing Thesis

A
  • each provided a formally exact predicate to replace the informal one
  • the set contains every mathematical function whose values can be obtained by a method of satisfying the above conditions for effectiveness
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Turings predicate

A
  • that of compatibility by Turing Machine
  • thesis: whenever there is an effective method for obtaining the values of a mathematical function, the function can be computed by a Turing Machine
  • what it is for a task to be computable is to be computable by a turing machine
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

the turing machine: theory, computability, algorithm

A
  • theory: simple and abstract computational devices intended to help investigate the extent and limitation of what can be computed
  • -they are mathematical objects, not physical objects like a physical computer
  • computability: it is possible to specify a sequence of instructions which will result in the completion of a task when they are carried out by some machine
  • algorithm: set of instructions which will result in the completion of some task
  • turing computability: if a task if computable by a turing machine
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

turing machines: description

A
  • it is a kind of state machine: at any time, the machine is in any of one finite number of states, instructions for the machine consist of specified conditions under which the machine will transition bw one state and another
  • it has an infinitely long tape: divided into cells, with each cell containing one symbol: either 1 or 0
  • it has a read-writ head: it scans a single cell on the tape during each state and can move left/right
  • it performs actions, determined by the following
    1. the current state of the machine
    2. the symbol in the cell currently being scanned
    3. a table of transitions rules
  • it halts: if the machine reaches a situation in which there is no unique transition rule
  • the tape serves as the machines memory
  • it shows whether a task or function is computable
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

a universal turing machine

A

a turing machine that can compute any function that any turing machine can compute

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

turings central question

A
  • can machines think?
  • what is a machine?
  • what is it to think?

-can answer central question by way of the imitation game

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

the imitation game

A
  • 3 people: a man(A), a woman(B), and an interrogator(C)
  • object: for the interrogator to determine which of the other 2 is the man and which is the woman
  • the interrogator may ask questions
  • answers given in type
  • A’s object to trick C
  • Bs object to help C
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

sufficient condition for a machine to think

A

to be able to fool a human, to be (from the POV of a human interrogator) indistinguishable from any ordinary human in receiving questions and providing answers in the imitation game

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

the turing test

A

would you, the interrogator, be able to determine which of the two is a machine and which is a human? if not, the machine counts as thinking aka as capable of having a cognitive state

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

two questions that arise from the turing test

A
  1. is the turing test indeed an adequate test for thinking or cognition?
  2. can there ever be a machine that can pass the turing test?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

turings response to the turing test

A
  • he thinks the test is adequate and that there can/will be machines that can think
  • foreshadowed by descartes: he thinks that the turing test is an adequate test for whether a machine can think, but he thinks that no machine could ever pass the test
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

responses to: can there ever be a machine that can pass the turing test?

A
  • even if some machines can pass the turing test, what would it actually show?
  • some argue taht we would grant that machines are capable of thinking in this way, but they would seem to fail to count as having cognition (of understanding, having intelligence, or possessing a mind)
  • passing the test is not sufficient for artificial intelligence
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

putnam: is artificial intelligence possible? Deep Blue

A
  • A chess playing computer that can evaluate 200 million positions/second
  • vs Gary Kaspanov (he eventually lost)
  • now chess playing computers are widely regarded as being able to beat the strongest players
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

chess terminator 2010, kramnik

A

-has an arm

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

watson by IBM

A

computer system capable of answering questions posed in naturalized language

  • not connected to the internet
  • was loaded with 4 terabytes of information
  • watson won jeopardy
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

hillary putnam & Fodor, the computational theory of mind

A
  • what is the nature of the human mind?
  • central idea: the human mind if literally a digital computer
  • thought/reasoning is literally a kind of computation
  • it is a formalizable process that can be duplicated or simulated by the right type of machine
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

CTM is an example of functionalism

A
  • the basic nature of some things ie mind, thoughts is understood solely in terms of their distinctive causal notes, not the particular stuff they happen to be made of or are realized by (the actual material itself is not essential to the pain)
  • ex: we might think that a rational alien is capable of feeling pain, even if it does not have C fibers (human central nervous system)
  • we might also think that a rational alien has a mind, even if it does not have a homosapiens physical neurons
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

computation

A
  • formal symbol manipulation: the manipulation of symbols in the performance of syntactic operations, an algorithm
  • something is computational only if it is reducible to an algorithmic solution
  • ie symbols (P, water, 1) have syntactic value and a semantic value (meaning)
  • example: water
    syntactic: symbols arranged in a particular order: w..a….t…e…r
    semantic: a word that refers to H2o
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

a syntactic semantic thesis

A
  • semantic properties are linked to syntactic properties
  • the semantic properties of symbols can be encoded in syntactically based rules
  • and computation links syntax to causal mechanisms that follow algorithms ie a turing machine
  • reasoning processes carry the semantic value of terms and can be carried out through non mysterious physical mechanisms ie a machine without transistors
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

the human mind

A

the mind is a computer
-all semantic properties of its mental representations ie beliefs thoughts etc, are tracked by syntactic properties which can be manipulated by the machinery causally responsible for reasoning

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

problems for CTM

A
  • is all human cognition formalizable?
  • how can syntactic considerations justify interpretation?
  • are computational processes cognitive?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

problem for CTM: Tim maudlin, olympia machine

A
  • we can build a system of buckets that transfer water, implementing a turing machine
  • is this system of buckets a thinking thing?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

problem for CTM: Ned Block, the Chinese Nation

A
  • suppose everyone in china is given a call list of phone numbers and instructions
  • designated input people initiate a process by calling the numbers on their call list
  • when others received a call, they would then call the number on their call list and so forth
  • the pattern of the calling process can be the same pattern of activation between neurons in a human brain in a mental state, such as pain
  • is the entire nation of china thereby in pain?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

searles argument on artificial intelligence

A

such merely computational systems like the olympia machine and chinese nation do not count as genuinely thinking, reasoning, understanding, and cognitive things
-artificial intelligence is not possible

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Searles The Chinese Room Argument

A
  • an english speaker who knows no chinese locked in a room full of boxes of chinese symbols together with a book of instructions for manipulating the symbols
  • image the people outside the room send in other chinese symbols which are questions, the input
  • imagine that by following the instructions in the program the man is able to pass out chinese symbols which are correct answers to the questions, the output
  • the program enables the person in the room to pass the turing test for understanding chinese but he does not understand a word of chinese
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

computation vs cognition

A

computation: purely formal syntactic operations applying or following algorithms
cognition: thinking, understanding, meaning, consciousness, intelligence, etc

28
Q

Searle: distinction between weak AI and strong AI

A
  • weak AI: computers can simulate mental activities, he accepts
  • strong AI: computers can duplicate or replicate mental activities, he rejects
29
Q

searle on human brains

A
  • human brains are biologically special
  • he thinks human brains are machines, at least a turing machine
  • rejects theory that human brains are merely computational or informative processing systems, that happen to be made out of flesh
  • something about the physiology or biology of the brain generates a conscious mind, biological realism about mental activity
30
Q

objections to chinese room arguement: the systems reply

A
  • the man in the room is only part of a larger system, which includes other parts (such as a database, program, memory, etc) required to answer chinese questions
  • the man is only the CPU or the implementer
  • the man doesnt understand chinese, but the system does
  • searles reply: pretend the man in the room memorized the whole book, then the man would be the entire system to perform the operations but still wouldnt understand chinese
31
Q

objections to chinese room arguement: robot reply

A
  • searle is right about the chinese room case, but if we put a digital computer in a robots body with sensors for the outside world, it can learn by seeing and doing
  • we learn natural language by way of ongoing interaction with the world
  • such a robot can learn and understand
  • searles reply: sensors are simply additional input, and mere syntactic input: no semantics are realized by more syntax
32
Q

objections to chinese room arguement: the brain stimulator supply

A
  • suppose the program stimulates the actual sequence of nerves firings as they do in the brain of a native chinese speaker
  • in such a case, the computer works in the same way as a native chinese speaking, processing information in the same way it would understand
  • searles response: simulation is not the real thing
33
Q

judith thomson: the moral permissibility or impermissibility of action, obligation, permissibility

A
  • difference between permissibility and obligation
  • obligation: morally correct action that you are required to, or should, perform
  • permissibility: an action that is not a duty or obligation yet is an action that you are allowed to perform even at some moral cost
  • we are focusing on what is permissible in trade off cases
  • trade off cases: you can either do 1 thing or another, but not both
34
Q

do general principles in morality aid us in determining permissibility?

A

phillipa foot

  • defends general principles as explanatory of permissibility
  • ex killing 5 is worse than killing 1
  • ex killing 1 is worse than letting 5 die
35
Q

judith thomson & particularism

A

defends particularism about moral permissibility in difficult cases
-more particular and complex principles

36
Q

phillipa foot trolley driver case

A
  • you are the trolley driver
  • you notice brakes and emergency brakes are broken
  • there are 5 workers ahead
  • there is 1 worker on the side track
  • steering wheel still works
  • which track do you choose?
  • Q: is it morally permissible for you to turn the trolley? to kill 1, not 5
  • foot says it is permissible to turn the trolley kill 1, thomson agrees
37
Q

transplant case

A
  • you are a surgeon
  • 5 patients about to die from different sorts of organ failure
  • each would not die if they had a healthy organ transplant
  • no healthy organs available
  • healthy patient walks in and is a match for all 5 dying patients
  • you ask him for 5 of his organs to save 5 lives
  • new patient says no
  • Q: is it morally permissible for you as the surgeon to kill the new healthy patient and harvest his organs to save the 5 dying patients?, kill 1, let 5 die
  • foot: not permissible, thomson agrees
38
Q

foots assessment on driver and transplant case

A
  • driver: it is permissible to turn the trolley to kill 1 over 5
  • transplant: it is not permissible to kill the 1 healthy patient to save the 5
  • difference between cases: superficially, both cases are 5 die or 1 dies but we arrive at different answers because
    1. Both: 5 die or 1 dies
    2: Driver: kill 5 or kill 1
    3. transplant: let 5 die or kill 1
  • difference between killing and letting die
  • thomson agrees with foots answers about what is permissible in each case, but she disagrees with foots general principles as justifying such permissibility
39
Q

judith thomson bystander case

A
  • you are a bystander
  • you notice the trolley driver has fainted and will not stop the train
  • you are acquinated with the track and the switch operations
  • if you do not pull the switch 5 die
  • if you do pull the switch 1 dies
  • Q: is it morally permissible to throw the swithc and kill the 1 rather then let 5 die?
  • rejects killing 1 is worse than letting 5 die
40
Q

thomson remorseful surgeon case

A

-you are a very tired overworked surgeon
-you accidently poison 5 healthy patients which results in organ failure
-you tell your fellow surgeons
-they make you feel terrible
-you find a healthy patient that matches the 5
-transplanting to save the 5 you could have otherwise effectively killed
Q: is it morally permissible for you to kill 1 in order to reverse your killing the other 5?
thomsons answer: impermissible to kill the 1, which seems like thomson rejects killing 5 is worse than killing 1

41
Q

thomsons assessment

A
  • trolley problem: why is it that the bystander may turn his trolley though the surgeon may not remove the young mans lungs, kidney, and heart?
  • concerns how to explain the difference in assessment of permissibility between transplant and bystander
  • worse to kill more than kill less
  • worse to kill than to let die
  • we shouldnt be relying on these general principles to settle questions about why certain acts are morally permissible/impermissible
42
Q

competing general principles of morality: benthams, kants

A
  • benthams conception of utility: the greatest happiness for the greatest number (would produce varying results ie transplant, surgeon)
  • kants formula of humanity: act so that you treat humanity as an end, not merely as a means
  • -improvement, fits with our intuitions
  • the surgeon uses a healthy person, IMP
  • the bystander does not use anybody to save the 5, PM
43
Q

thomson bystander loop case

A

-you are the bystander
-trolley driver fainted
-theres the switch
-if you do nothing 5 die
-if you do, kills 1
-either way the sheer mass of the person will stop the trolley
Q: morally permissible to pull switch?
thomson says yes

44
Q

thomsons solution

A
  • key difference between transplant and bystander case
  • distributive exemption
  • -a permissible action involves a correct distribution of existing threats
  • -when there is an existing threat that will cause harm no matter what you do, it is permissible to distribute the harm from more people to less
  • not clear what justifies such distribution
  • its explanatory power: bystander/permissible, transplant/impermissible
45
Q

bystander bridge

A

-you are a bystander
-the trolley driver faints
-you are on a bridge behind a fat man
-he is leaning over a rail looking at 5 workers
-you know he could stop the train
-you would push the fat man over the rail to help the other 5
Q: permissible to push him?
No
Thomson agrees that is does satisfy distributive exemption, the fat man put himself in danger

46
Q

thomsons solution to the trolley problem

A

-right to life
1. the patient, the worker, and the fat man have a right to life
2. but a right to live does not alone always settle questions of permissibility
-permissible to kill the 1 worker, driver, bystander
why is it not permissible to push the fat man?
-noninfringement of stringent rights
1. a permissible action does not infringe upon any stringent rights
thomson: a crucial difference between bystander bridge and bystander
-the means by which will save the 5 in each case significantlly differs
-difference in direct action an infringment of rights (pushing someone vs pulling a lever)

47
Q

taurek: central claims: on moral permissibility

A
  • consider trade off cases: either 1 can prevent a certain harm to 5 or prevent the same harm to 1, but not both
  • question: should we consider the numbers of people involved as something significant in determining what is permissible?
  • taurek rejects the numbers principle
  • # s count: save greater
  • taurek central claim: when all things are equal, there is no moral requirment to save the 5 over saving 1
  • it is morally permissible to save the 1
48
Q

trade off case

A

-i am in possession of a life saving drug
-6 people will die if not treated
-1/6 requires all the drug to survive
-each of the other 5 only requires 1/5 of the drug
-Q: what am i morally obligated to do?
-clarify other things being equal: if the people were different then one death would be worse than the other
-suppose the 5 people are lunatics with nuclear codes and if they survive they will kill everyone
-suppose the 1 is a genius with the cure to cancer
-suppose you made the promise to give the drug to a certain person
#s count false

49
Q

my drug and david case

A

-i am in possession of a life saving drug
-6 people will die if not treated
-1/6 requires all the drug to survive
-each of the other 5 only requires 1/5 of the drug
-suppose you know and like the 1 peroson, david
-you would want to save david
#s count false

50
Q

taureks assessment

A
  • argument against #s count
  • P1 if #s count is true, not case 1 would save david over the 5
  • P2 but 1 may choose david over the 5
  • C #s count is not true
51
Q

support for -P1 if #s count is true, not case 1 would save david over the 5

A

considering and rejecting a natural objection to the premis

  • object: things are not = because of david
  • even if #s count is true, it is still permissible to save david
  • taurek denies any special obligation to david, so it is not clear what the moral obligation is
52
Q

support for -P2 but 1 may choose david over the 5

A

-by way of analogy, involves an analysis of judgement about what is worse

53
Q

davids drug and me case

A
  • i am in possession of a life saving drug
  • 6 people will die if not treated
  • 1/6 requires all the drug to survive
  • each of the other 5 only requires 1/5 of the drug
  • suppose david owns the drug but i am in possession of it
  • david is sick
  • Q: is david morally required to give his drug to the 5
54
Q

taurkes assessment of davids drug and me case

A
  • david saving himself violates no rights of the 5
  • it is also morally permissible for me to save david if the drug is mine
  • taurek thinks each person should be given an equal chance to survive, a coin flip should be in stated
  • even if its 1:50 people, flip a coin
55
Q

harry frankfurt on bullshit preliminary claims

A
  • phenomenom of bullshit
  • bullshit is salient in society
  • we all contribute some
  • we are confident in being able to recognize it
  • consequence: we have no idea what bullshit is
56
Q

humbug, max black

A
  • humbug is sufficiently similar to bullshit, however more polite
  • formally: a deceptive misrepresentation, sort of lying, especially by pretentious word or deed of somebody’s own thoughts, feelings, or attitudes
  • black says these features are essential
  • frankfurt accepts, but says it needs to be more specific
57
Q

deceptive misrepresentation

A

deliberate attempt to misinterpret something, intention to deceive
-statement might be false or true

58
Q

short of lying

A
  • attempt to deceive others of what you are thinking

- statement might be T or F

59
Q

especially by pretentious word or deed

A
  • an action can count as humbug
  • pretentious: not necessary or required
  • pretentious motive leads to bullshit
60
Q

misrepresentation

A

does not require about lying about your own state of mind

61
Q

frankfurt on black

A

does not adequatley grasp the essential character of bullshit

62
Q

franks central characteristics

A
  • misrepresentation contrast with bull sessions
  • bluffing and bullshitting
  • lying and bullshitting
63
Q

misrepresentation contrast with bull sessions

A
  • a discussion that may be intense and significant but is not for real
  • about personal topics ie religion, race, etc
  • get into bull sessions because reluctant to speak openly if we expect to be taken too seriously
  • —but with bullshit, there is an intent to deceive about whats in your head
64
Q

bluffing and bullshitting

A
  • talking in ways that are not to the purpose
  • talking nonsense, no craft of something that is false
  • bullshitting involves some crafting for purpose of deceit
  • but they are similar in lack of concern of the truth, being phony or counterfeit, but bluffing has no intention to deceive
65
Q

lying and bullshitting

A
  • an attempt to steer someone away from the truth and towards falsity
  • what he thinks is true, his misrepresents so that you will believe what he thinks is false
  • the liar is responding to the truth
  • the liear is respectful of the truth, not fake or a phony
66
Q

purpose of franks inquiry

A
  • respect/concern for the truth are among the foundations of civilizations
  • liars respect the value of the truth
  • bullshitters just dont care at all–more of a threat than a liar
  • bullshit artist: has a panorama of beliefs, the liar is limited to the truth
  • there is more BS now than in the past because of the intensity of marketing motives in contemporary society
  • the object is to sell something not to tell the truth, but to get people to believe whatever you want them to believe about it
  • tendency to BS is encouraged and promoted by the fact that its a widespread view in a democratic society that a responsible citizen ought to have an opinion about everything. so, you opinions are likely to be based on BS.

USF: Philosophy (5 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions